So what have we learned in the first two days of the Washington Nationals' 2012 Spring Training? Not much we didn't know. Mike Cameron's decision to decline the Nats' ST invitation and call it a career can't be seen as too much of a surprise. Bryce Harper has arrived. The Nationals' middle infielders have changed their uniform numbers, with Ian Desmond going from no. 6 to no.20 and Danny Espinosa changing from no.18 to no.8, but we already knew that. Some astute readers noticed that Ian Desmond and Danny Espinosa's jersey numbers were changed weeks back and we did a little investigating then:
"Danny Espinosa wore no.8 on his jersey at Long Beach State. The Nats' SS@2B also wore the number 8 at some stops in the Nats' system. According to reports at the time, the infielder changed to 18 when he got called up to make his debut with Washington in September of 2010 because then-bench coach John McLaren already had the no.8. Espinosa will return to wearing the no.8 when he returns to the nation's capital this season.
"Ian Desmond will be wearing the no.20 in 2012. I asked and looked around, no good explanation for why. He was born on 9/20/85? To honor the Nats' skipper and Hall of Famer Frank Robinson? Anyone? Those are the cosmetic changes you'll notice around the 2012 Nats' infield."
The second guess on Desmond was apparently correct, as he explained to reporters upon arriving at Spring Training. The 26-year-old shortstop told MLB.com's Bill Ladson in an article entitled, "Desmond honors Robinson with No. 20", that he made the change from no.6 to no.20 to honor Hall of Famer Frank Robinson (and the Detroit Lions' Barry Sanders). Robinson was the manager of the Montreal Expos and the 2005-2006 Washington Nationals and as Desmond explained, Robinson was also, "... the first person in professional baseball to believe in his abilities on the diamond."
In NatsInsider.com's Mark Zuckerman's article on the number switch, Desmond says he didn't talk to the former Nats' skipper about wearing the number the manager wore, (Adam Kennedy's worn it before), but Desmond did say that if he had, Robinson would probably have told, "'You better start hitting some homers before you take that number!'" The NatsInsider and CSNWashington.com reporter did, however, mention that new Nats' right-hander Edwin Jackson requested the no.33 and received permission from Nationals' owner Mark Lerner to wear it. The no.33, of course, is the number Frank Howard wore when he played for the second Senators from 1965-71.
During that time, Howard, aka Hondo, or the Capital Punisher, had a .279/.369/.513 line and a 162-game average of 21 doubles and 34 HR's as the Senators' big middle of the order bat. The popular slugger didn't qualify for a spot on Nationals Park's Ring of Honor, which was reserved for players from the franchise's past (in two previous D.C.-based incarnations and the Montreal franchise which moved to the nation's capital in '05) who've made the Hall of Fame, but Howard is one of three players (along with Walter Johnson and Josh Gibson) who had a statue erected in his honor in the Centerfield Plaza at Nationals Park.
The only numbers officially retired by the franchise (along with no.42 league-wide) are from the Montreal Expos' past of the current franchise (no.8 for Gary Carter, no. 10 for Andre Dawson and Rusty Staub and no.30 for Tim Raines), and those numbers (as we see with Danny Espinosa's no.8) haven't been taken off the list of possible jersey numbers for players to choose from in D.C. Should they be? Probably not, but that's a discussion for another time when we want to get back into the whole Montreal Expos' past not having anything to do with the D.C. baseball history (except in the eyes of MLB, the Nationals and the record books.)
But the #20 and #33? Frank Robinson guided the inaugural Nationals as they moved from Montreal to Washington, D.C. and led them to the best record they've had since baseball returned to the nation's capital. Robinson only managed two seasons in D.C. of course, and he didn't part with the franchise under the best circumstances, but he's a Hall of Famer, the only player to win the MVP in both leagues and an important part of the history of the third baseball team to call the nation's capital its home. Frank Howard was honored at RFK when baseball returned to the nation's capital. Why not honor the two men, retire their numbers and get it over with while you have the chance to invite them to participate in a ceremony? Grandfather Desmond and Jackson in and when they're done in D.C. retire the the numbers 20 and 33 for good.
0 recs | 39 comments
It is sad
Not only does a city lose a team, but a franchise loses its history upon a move.
They should certainly consider it.
Bsullivan - February 20, 2012
I'm with you on that, Patrick
FRobby and Hondo are still two of my favorites.
gengreen17 - February 20, 2012
I have been trying to come up with a coherent post for my blog about this
Here’s my take:
Retire #20? No, sets the bar too low. There were things I liked about Frank Robinson as manager, but retiring his number is overkill. He never had a winning record in D.C., no playoff appearances anywhere.
Retiring #33 — absolutely. I don’t understand why the Nats haven’t embraced Frank Howard more. He wore a curly W, played in RFK, etc. He could bridge two eras of D.C. baseball.
The Montreal Canadiens have a banner for the Expos and wore #8 Carter jerseys for the pregame skate the other night. That’s wonderful of them and part of their ongoing role as caretakers of the Expos legacy. Carter’s Expos heroics where just that, Expos heroics, I think it is disingenuous to claim them.
I hope someday, Montreal gets a team again, it is a great city. I can think of an AL East team that would be perfect!
WFY - February 20, 2012
I think the Nationals have done all they need to do to honor the Expos, honestly.
I tend to agree on Robinson too, but think he was the new team’s first manager, helped reintroduce baseball to the nation’s capital, etc, and in spite of the fact that the teams he managed weren’t great, why wouldn’t you want to keep him connected to the franchise?
What’s happened to keep Howard from being a bigger part of the new baseball team in the nation’s capital is unclear to me, but I think the no.33 will eventually be retired.
Patrick Reddington - February 20, 2012
I'll be interested to see if Jackson sticks with 33
There hasn’t been significant backlash that I can see so far, but I’m wondering if there will be any. I don’t know if Howard cares, after all he had at least 3 different numbers during his career and changed from #9 to #33 when Ted Williams showed up. I still want to see it retired for him though, that stuff is more for the fans anyway.
What do you think of the Habs keeping the Expos legacy alive?
WFY - February 20, 2012
Howard was a great player
But if anyone’s going to retire his number it should be Texas, not Washington. I’m more on board with retiring Rock Raines or Gary Carter’s number than someone who played for an entirely different organization, albeit in the same city. To me that would be like the Yankees retiring Duke Snider’s number just because the Fodgers moved to LA.
Pig.Pen - February 20, 2012
Frank Howard didn't even play one full season with the Rangers!
I’d be willing to bet that if were to be elected to The Hall of Fame (which he of course won’t be) he would go in wearing a Nats cap. You know, the one with the Curly W?
In case you’re not familiar with what he looks like with that cap on, it’s the one he’s wearing in that statue of him at Nationals Park.
PerryMason - February 20, 2012
Still
He never played for the Washington Nationals and to me that’s like saying that the Mets should retire Mel Ott’s number because he never played for San Francisco. Just look at Mel Ott’s picture, in black and white he’s wearing a Mets hat.
Pig.Pen - February 21, 2012
Habs/Expos, I think it's great that there is somewhere in the city of Montreal that keeps the Expos' memory alive...
And I don’t think there’s probably much reason to travel to Olympic Stadium for an Expos fan since there’s nothing there to remind them of the Expos. (Though there is a great statue of Jackie Robinson from his Montreal Royals days).
The Habs wearing Gary Carter No.8 jerseys this weekend was just a classy thing to do.
Forgot that Howard wore no.9 early in D.C., thanks.
Patrick Reddington - February 20, 2012
Dumb question, but would Jackson be the first to wear 33? I can’t think of any other of the top of my head.
ovechkinmvp - February 20, 2012
Zuckerman pointed out that an old prospect Larry Broadway wore it in Spring Training in 2005...
No once since then that I can recall or have heard mentioned.
Patrick Reddington - February 20, 2012
Thank you Patrick..........
I more then agree with you….Carter, Dawson, and Raines did’nt play in Washington…….Howard and Killebrew did………..
Any talk of Frank Robinson is just silly.
This is not the ESPOS Organization. And they do play here In Washington.
artistfork - February 20, 2012
Im still disapointed that we cant honor the numbers already retired by the teams whos 2004 season got us Ryan Zimmerman
Im fine if you dont want to retire the numbers for Vlad, or any other Expo who hasnt had his number retired already, but the players whos number was already retired should be up kept.
Put Hoawrd on your little ring of fame thing, its quite stupid that the man most people think of when they think of the newer Senators is not up there. Frank Robinson really didnt do much for this franchise. Should we retire Chad Corderos number because he was one of the first stars from this team?
jeff550 - February 20, 2012
You can honor it without retiring it.
Toronto Maple Leafs have been doing that for years.
Whiter Mage - February 20, 2012
I was never an Expos fan
So maybe that’s why I don’t particularly care. I don’t think the team should worry too much about maintaining the historical link to Montral because there wasn’t much good history in Montreal. I love Frank Robinson, but he didn’t do anything with the Nationals organization to warrant having his number retired and to retire a bunch of numbers to just have numbers retired will one day take away some of the luster from Ryan Zimmerman or Strasburg or Harper when they’re the first National to have their number retired.
Pig.Pen - February 20, 2012
It's analogous to
the Giants and Dodgers paying homage to players from their days in NY and Brooklyn, respectively. Or Atlanta honoring Warren Spahn.
I have no problem with remembering the past, be it of the franchise (Expos) or of the city (Senators I or Senators II).
jbg2772 - February 20, 2012
For some reason it doesn't bother me with the Giants or Dodgers
Maybe it’s because they didn’t change their name. That being said, I reallyhave no issue with the Nats retiring old Expos’ numbers like Gary Carter and Rock Raines, but I also don’t care. I would have an issue with them retiring old Senators numbers or retiring Frank Robinson’s number just for being the first manager. I know the Nats moved from Montreal, but I’ve always felt like they were more of an expansion team than a team that moved. Probably because by the time they moved they had fewer assets in place than an expansion team would have.
Pig.Pen - February 20, 2012
[Desmond sheds a single tear]
RobBobS - February 20, 2012
The Expos
were also playing home games in Puerto Rico too.
HarmonK - February 20, 2012 via mobile
That is the epitome of smug!
With all due respect, the history of baseball in Washington D.C. (dating back to the early 1900’s) might not matter to some Johnny Come Lately fans, but to many us who have been around for a while (not to mention their parents, grandparents, and even great grandparents), that history does (did) matter and it deserves to be recognized here and not someplace like Texas where they could care less.
PerryMason - February 20, 2012
Reply fail to PigPen
PerryMason - February 20, 2012
It's not smugness at all
Like you, I’m very concerned with the history of the game and its integrity, but those old Washington players should be recognized by their franchises just like the other players of their era whose teams moved. The Phillies don’t have a bunch of retired numbers or statues erected to old Philadelphia A’s and the Mets don’t have statues and numbers retired from old Giants and Dodgers. In fact, the Giants would have a conniption if the Mets tried to retire Mel Ott’s number or put up statues for Christy Mathewson and John McGraw. Likewise the Red Sox don’t retire the numbers of old Boston Braves players.
All that is to say that there is a place for the history of the game to be preserved and franchises retiring the numbers of players who never played for their franchise is not the way to go. But thank you, as I’ve thought through this, the Nats need to enforce those Expos players whose numbers have been retired and if other former Expos go in to the HOF, they should have their numbers retired as well. However, teams shouldn’t go crazy retiring numbers just to retire numbers. Look at the Giants and Yankees, when you look at the numbers they’ve retired it’s not just a list of Hall of Famers, but the greats of the game, guys like Ruth and Mathewson, Mantle and Mays, Gehrig and McCovey and to me that’s what all teams should aspire to.
Pig.Pen - February 21, 2012
I can see now that i did not make myself clear. Please allow me to backtrack. I am not in favor of the Nationals retiring any former Senators numbers. But I do not think it its inappropriate for the Nationals to honor certain players in some special at the stadium. As for former Expos, I have no issue with the Nats continuing to honor previously retired numbers if there are any. As for doing so now, like a Gary Carter, that wouldnt bother me either.
It’s a bit of a sticky wicket. The thing that got me going was what I see as a nonsensical notion that the Rangers would honor someone like Frank Howard or Walter Johnson and in anyway claim them as there own.
Same holds true with someone like Harmon Killebrew, my first baseball hero. I mostly think of him as a Senator, but clearly he will go down in baseball history as a Minnasota Twin and it would not be appropriate for him to be honored in some special way, like a statue or retired number, by the Nationals. A picture of him somewhere at the park though I think would be a nice touch.
PerryMason - February 22, 2012
There was a #3 Killebrew jersey in the Nats dugout after he died for the rest of the season
That might have been a bit much, maybe just a homestead would have been better.
WFY - February 22, 2012
So, if you're going to retire a number for Howard, which do you retire?
He wore #9 for four years, #33 for three years. Which do you retire?
d_c_guy - February 20, 2012
to quote The Beatles, #9
PerryMason - February 20, 2012
Boyz, the days when players were identified with one team - let alone with one number - are past.
The grand old game has changed – for better, and for worse. Retiring a player’s number hardly makes sense anymore, sad to say.
Whupass - February 21, 2012
Largely true, and because it's so rare we certainly notice the exceptions
The Yankees are going to retire Jeter’s #2 and Rivera’s #42 (the last player in the league to wear the number, retired throughout baseball for Jackie Robinson) once those players step down, and I think that’s appropriate. Both are solid locks for the HoF and will end up playing their whole careers with the Yankees. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Zimmerman and Strasburg (after long, illustrious careers) with the Nationals. But I know the odds are stacked against it.
d_c_guy - February 21, 2012
and Roy White stands alone
once Jeter’s number is retired, that leaves only #6 available among single digits. Overall, the Yankees have 16 retired numbers (not counting 42), the most in MLB.
jbg2772 - February 21, 2012
Pretty soon
no one will be able to play in a Yankees uniform anymore.
RobBobS - February 21, 2012
Or else they get mathematically sophisticated
and start assigning imaginary numbers…
jbg2772 - February 21, 2012
"Now batting,..
“…number square root of negative 5… Bryce Harper.”
(Heaven forbid)
RobBobS - February 21, 2012
“Imaginary numbers
Never turn you down
When all the others turn you away
They’re around
It’s my private pleasure
Midnight fantasy
Someone to share my
Wildest dreams with me
Imaginary number
You’re mine anytime
Imaginary number, oh yeah."
With apologies to Atlanta Rhythm Section
Whupass - February 21, 2012
well done
I suspect Tom Lehrer’s “”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQHaGhC7C2E&feature=fvsr" >Lobachevsky" or “”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIWaJ0sy03g" >New Math" might also be appropriate…
jbg2772 - February 22, 2012
Okay, that didn't work
Lobachevsky
New Math
jbg2772 - February 22, 2012
Roy White - under-rated ballplayer and a good guy
He was my “Coach” at Fantasy Camp, so I go to talk with him some. He’s and his wife have been married over 40 years now, and he has at least one grandchild. Really seemed like a good guy. Bill James rated White ahead of Jim Rice, George Foster and Joe Carter for White’s all-around game and solid stats produced in a time when pitching dominated MLB. I’m not sure I’m prepared to go that far, but I do think that White is under-rated by most. Quiet, solid and professional.
d_c_guy - February 21, 2012
and owner of a truly weird elbows-low batting stance
He was probably my favorite player when I started following the Yankees as a kid. I remember a line in the 1970 yearbook “… a long lonely battle to unseat Bobby Richardson at second base…”, which explained his less-than-stellar throwing arm.
jbg2772 - February 21, 2012
His LH batting stance ...
knock-kneed, pigeon-toed, elbows down … bizarre. IIRC his RH batting stance was actually fairly conventional.
d_c_guy - February 21, 2012
Torre wore 6
I could see that being retired.
WFY - February 21, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Federal Baseball to post a comment.